It's NOT 50/50, it's anywhere between 100/0 to 0/100 depending on the individual.

To you it may be 50/50, to your friend it may be 50/50, and to everyone you personally know it may be 50/50, but you and those people are not everyone or even the majority of people. On the extreme end of the spectrum there are romantic asexuals who only crave the emotional side of a romantic relationship and on the opposite side of the spectrum there are aromantic sexuals who pretty much only need the sex. Most people are located somewhere between and as a bonus, there are people like me who fall outside the spectrum altogether: people who crave a solid ratio of 0/0 when it comes to sexual intimacy and romantic intimacy, collectively known as aromantic asexuals.

Try to get it through your head that generalisations like "Everyone wants this and this is how much they want it compared to this" do not work no matter what you're talking about, whether it's romantic relationships or the ratio of milk to coffee.

Also, I'm not sexually conservative, I'm very liberal about sex. I think everyone should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their sexual lives as long as the participating individuals (if living) consent to it and no expectations should be forced down anyone's throat. The truth is though, the expectation that everyone likes sex and values it all the same is a misconception, a harmful one, because it simply isn't true and it will never be true.

What part of " If you don't like sex then look for someone who doesn't like it as well" you didn't understand? I never said he was a "freak" or insulted him. My problem is that he stated his opinion as fact. Also, asexual are a minority. I've met them. They do exist, but it's not a majority. Humans are animals. We're sexual animals with needs. Did you know that humans are the only animals that can have sex for more then two minutes? There is a reason for that, but I digress.

... What have you been smoking? There are lots of animal species that can have sex more than two minutes at a time. There are animal species that have dozens of frequent, separate short sessions for hours and then there are some, like tortoises and rhinos, who really, really take their time with just one act. Hell, even something like a dragonfly mating takes longer than that, which is why they need to be able to take off and fly even during mating.

I just saw Life in the Under-growth and slugs take hours, they turn into sex chandeliers, its REALLY weird yet slightly hipnotic.

I just saw Life in the Under-growth and slugs take hours, they turn into sex chandeliers, its REALLY weird yet slightly hipnotic.

Were they leopard slugs? The bizarre stuff they do is the stuff of legends.

My favourite mating practice belongs to flatworms -- they go through what is called penis fencing. Penis fencing. They have a duel with their reproductive organs and the one who gets stabbed first has to carry the offspring. How awesome is that?

you are just the worst and most stereotypically terrible movie critiec ever, other people like different films, for an audience of rom coms, and that not just poeples mums, this will be good as are many of the other movies. you highlight everything wrong with critics.

Mmmmm I like romantic comedy and tend to hate T&A, the point of a romantic comedy is a lite take on life while tugging at some emotions while they may be stabs in the dark others are more for the imagination of the viewer to feel in where they are being groped... anyway good review... for a prev..... :P

simonzephyr:you are just the worst and most stereotypically terrible movie critiec ever, other people like different films, for an audience of rom coms, and that not just poeples mums, this will be good as are many of the other movies. you highlight everything wrong with critics.

Ya he tends to think to much of himself and dose not stop loathing on things he hates.While he may be pandering to geeks in their post pre teens and late 40's he is honest enough to bitch and moan about his issues with X or Y before bitching about why he dose not like something.

He only has 2 choices focusing on more generic issues with films in a more formalistic standard approach or go after what he thinks is wrong, one of these choices makes more a more bland and forgettable show. Also its more fun to rant at im for the bastard he is when he goes off teh cliff with teh rantz. lulz

I just saw Life in the Under-growth and slugs take hours, they turn into sex chandeliers, its REALLY weird yet slightly hipnotic.

Were they leopard slugs? The bizarre stuff they do is the stuff of legends.

My favourite mating practice belongs to flatworms -- they go through what is called penis fencing. Penis fencing. They have a duel with their reproductive organs and the one who gets stabbed first has to carry the offspring. How awesome is that?

Did you watch the Youtube video too? I would love to be an Argonaut, lauchable, homing penis... no escape.

Not going to deny that, but think about this: it was based on real life. Real life people have racist undertones. Therefore, according to Bob's logic from this video, it should be good because it's like reality.

It's kind of hard to do a movie that depicts people doing racist things without the movie itself being called racist.The movie itself is not racist. It's about real people, some of whom are racist, doing real things.

Never saw it so I can't comment

Ah. Well, I recommend it. It's a good watch, especially if you like football. There's even a pretty funny moment somewhat early on, showing what can happen to the people who say racist stuff.

Michael Oher gets into the school's football team, and a guy on the other team right in front of him during one game starts saying some racist things to him. He gets a bit upset at this but doesn't want to do anything that might end up affecting his new family. Well, the guy keeps it up the second time the teams face off, so when they go "Hut" and the teams clash, Michael Oher goes and pushes against the guy and backs him up. He keeps going, pushing the guy back down the entire field, and over the foam barrier at the end of the end zone. When the coach went up to him and was like, "WHAT are you DOING?" he said, "He needed to go home, so I helped him to the bus."

Switchlurk:Yeah..... Sorry Bobby, but i don't buy it. Sex isn't the be-all and end-all of romantic relationships, and relationships that are built around/fueled mostly by mutual physical attraction tend to feel flimsy and plastic in comparision to relationships that stem from gradual and progressive emotional involvement, at least in my experience. Indetifying Sex as the key ingredeant in devoloping a tangible relationship speaks volumes about yourself good sir.

Eh, anyway, between I Love You Too and Scott Pilgrim my Cinema Rom-Com quota is filled for this year. Probs check it out when it comes to DVD

How can you say that? I mean I can sort of get where your coming from but REALLY?

I know im going to sound like an absolute twat for this sentance but relationships with people tend to be similar to relationships with most other things in terms of progression. Its the visuals, the aesthetics that first catch your eye and drag you in but its only a connection on a deeper level that keeps a relationship going and for me at least this applies for most things. Even if you dont value it as an integrul part you cant deny it as a catalyst.

Denying sex (aesthetics) as a key foundation in a relationship is not only wrong in many ways but quite mean. Could you honestly look at someone your in a sexual relationship with and say "Hey I love hanging out with you but I am not the least bit interested in you physically" FUCK THAT, I would hate to be with a girl who found me unappealing to look at. Its not natural, its not nice and even though there is far more to a good sexual relationship then JUST sex casting it in the negative way your making it out to be, just seems wrong to me.

I know there are exceptions, I know there are people who truly dont care but I at least am not one of them and for you to look down on people like me because I find it insensitive, calling me shallow and what ever else, really is offensive. Not that im to bothered, I get stick off my Mum every now and then for not finding overweight girls attractive so im used to it.

The problem with your argument is that physical attraction and physical involvement are two distinctly different things. Physical attraction, i.e. liking the way someone looks, is indeed crucial to the development and healthy sustainment of a romantic relationship. I totally agree with you, I'd hate to be with someone who didn't find me in the least bit attractive. But then you have physical involvement, which when featured heavily in early stages of relationship development tends to just lead to relationship based around sex rather than relationships based around love (and YES, there is a difference).

I'm not saying that looks play no part in romantic relationships. That's ludicrous. But, in my experience at least, it's easy to let looks, and then to a greater extent sex, be the foundation of a relationship, and once that happens, you're just left with a shallow half shell of what a meaningful relationship could've been.

Hmmm... wow...This defiled women and romantic comedies all at once... Of course human nature, mostly for men, is SEX. I am not sure why it is such a sore topic, but it is. I appreciate your bold, yet virgin, approach to the romantic comedies that "sucked." (or in your opinion did not suck enough...) I LOVE romantic comedies and I don't know why. Probably because of their fake approach to romance because it is the closest thing to a video game that I am not interacting with and solving puzzles. My thing is though... I don't like when movies are ruined by sex appeal. Of course there are a lot of jokes to pull out when it comes to sex, so comedy is inevitable. Just I would like to get through an action packed movie like Transformers without the slut shoves her tongue down pretty boys mouth. It adds to the drama everyone seems to crave, but really? Too much sex appeal ruins a movie. I probably think this way because it is usually the women that are thrown around in disgusting ways. I don't know, but I could not believe seeing this review showed off the sex parts making it a good movie... disgusting and definitely not a great first impression on this guys segments...

Switchlurk:Yeah..... Sorry Bobby, but i don't buy it. Sex isn't the be-all and end-all of romantic relationships, and relationships that are built around/fueled mostly by mutual physical attraction tend to feel flimsy and plastic in comparision to relationships that stem from gradual and progressive emotional involvement, at least in my experience. Indetifying Sex as the key ingredeant in devoloping a tangible relationship speaks volumes about yourself good sir.

Eh, anyway, between I Love You Too and Scott Pilgrim my Cinema Rom-Com quota is filled for this year. Probs check it out when it comes to DVD

How can you say that? I mean I can sort of get where your coming from but REALLY?

I know im going to sound like an absolute twat for this sentance but relationships with people tend to be similar to relationships with most other things in terms of progression. Its the visuals, the aesthetics that first catch your eye and drag you in but its only a connection on a deeper level that keeps a relationship going and for me at least this applies for most things. Even if you dont value it as an integrul part you cant deny it as a catalyst.

Denying sex (aesthetics) as a key foundation in a relationship is not only wrong in many ways but quite mean. Could you honestly look at someone your in a sexual relationship with and say "Hey I love hanging out with you but I am not the least bit interested in you physically" FUCK THAT, I would hate to be with a girl who found me unappealing to look at. Its not natural, its not nice and even though there is far more to a good sexual relationship then JUST sex casting it in the negative way your making it out to be, just seems wrong to me.

I know there are exceptions, I know there are people who truly dont care but I at least am not one of them and for you to look down on people like me because I find it insensitive, calling me shallow and what ever else, really is offensive. Not that im to bothered, I get stick off my Mum every now and then for not finding overweight girls attractive so im used to it.

The problem with your argument is that physical attraction and physical involvement are two distinctly different things. Physical attraction, i.e. liking the way someone looks, is indeed crucial to the development and healthy sustainment of a romantic relationship. I totally agree with you, I'd hate to be with someone who didn't find me in the least bit attractive. But then you have physical involvement, which when featured heavily in early stages of relationship development tends to just lead to relationship based around sex rather than relationships based around love (and YES, there is a difference).

I'm not saying that looks play no part in romantic relationships. That's ludicrous. But, in my experience at least, it's easy to let looks, and then to a greater extent sex, be the foundation of a relationship, and once that happens, you're just left with a shallow half shell of what a meaningful relationship could've been.

I have to disagree with you entirely. Physical involvement in the early stages of development don't tend to lead to relationships based around sex instead of love. Physical involvement early on is essential to forming the kind of romantic bond that makes a romantic relationship different from a friendship. Physical intimacy (not just intercourse, but touching and kissing) is an essential part of building a relationship. That doesn't make it a "shall half shell of what a meaningful relationship could've been," but instead leads to a deeper commitment.

There's a reason its general wisdom that long distance relationships don't work. There's a reason that ending a date with a handshake generally means the relationship isn't going to become a romantic one. In my experience, it's actually rather difficult to let looks and sex become the foundation of a relationship that could have been meaningful. Generally, looks and sex become the foundation of a relationship where there is no other foundation to stand on. They allow you to pretend that a relationship that is dead emotionally still has a chance to grow when it doesn't. Sex and looks don't get in the way of deeper commitments, they actually allow them.

Switchlurk:Yeah..... Sorry Bobby, but i don't buy it. Sex isn't the be-all and end-all of romantic relationships, and relationships that are built around/fueled mostly by mutual physical attraction tend to feel flimsy and plastic in comparision to relationships that stem from gradual and progressive emotional involvement, at least in my experience. Indetifying Sex as the key ingredeant in devoloping a tangible relationship speaks volumes about yourself good sir.

Eh, anyway, between I Love You Too and Scott Pilgrim my Cinema Rom-Com quota is filled for this year. Probs check it out when it comes to DVD

How can you say that? I mean I can sort of get where your coming from but REALLY?

I know im going to sound like an absolute twat for this sentance but relationships with people tend to be similar to relationships with most other things in terms of progression. Its the visuals, the aesthetics that first catch your eye and drag you in but its only a connection on a deeper level that keeps a relationship going and for me at least this applies for most things. Even if you dont value it as an integrul part you cant deny it as a catalyst.

Denying sex (aesthetics) as a key foundation in a relationship is not only wrong in many ways but quite mean. Could you honestly look at someone your in a sexual relationship with and say "Hey I love hanging out with you but I am not the least bit interested in you physically" FUCK THAT, I would hate to be with a girl who found me unappealing to look at. Its not natural, its not nice and even though there is far more to a good sexual relationship then JUST sex casting it in the negative way your making it out to be, just seems wrong to me.

I know there are exceptions, I know there are people who truly dont care but I at least am not one of them and for you to look down on people like me because I find it insensitive, calling me shallow and what ever else, really is offensive. Not that im to bothered, I get stick off my Mum every now and then for not finding overweight girls attractive so im used to it.

The problem with your argument is that physical attraction and physical involvement are two distinctly different things. Physical attraction, i.e. liking the way someone looks, is indeed crucial to the development and healthy sustainment of a romantic relationship. I totally agree with you, I'd hate to be with someone who didn't find me in the least bit attractive. But then you have physical involvement, which when featured heavily in early stages of relationship development tends to just lead to relationship based around sex rather than relationships based around love (and YES, there is a difference).

I'm not saying that looks play no part in romantic relationships. That's ludicrous. But, in my experience at least, it's easy to let looks, and then to a greater extent sex, be the foundation of a relationship, and once that happens, you're just left with a shallow half shell of what a meaningful relationship could've been.

Im not quite getting what you mean by physical involvement, do you mean the way in which someone presents themselfs to others, how they like to be veiwed or something else?

As im not sure I typed it into Google but not even the internet seems to know!

As for the movie itself, could it be that finally the U.S. movie industry has discovered what the European movie industry has known for decades? That to make a romantic comedy/drama feel realistic and engaging the main characters actually have to react like human beings? (Now, if they could take the next step and actually make them LOOK like human beings, they might have a romantic blockbuster in their hands!)

Diligent:My reason for disliking romantic comedies, apart from the aforementioned wishy-washy PG crap is the predictably formulaic plot, and if this movie follows it I don't think any amount of good acting or nudity could save it for me. Great review though!Step 1: boy meets girl or girl meets boy.Step 2: they like eachotherStep 3: guy bangs some other girl and main girl is upsetStep 4: new girl quickly turns out to be wrong for the guy or evilStep 5: main girl and guy make up in a spectacular and/or public fashionStep 6: final kiss and roll creditsStep 7: Profit.

Well, that's one kind. Here's what I had in mind.

Step 1: Boy meets girl or girl meets boyStep 2: They like each otherStep 3: Their attempts to coexist are horrible. All the girls in the audience are calling the guy a dull-witted, insensitive bloke and all the guys are calling the girl a stuck-up, high-maintenance little bitchStep 4: They separate and one or both of them finds a better mateStep 5: Guy suddenly confesses love to girl and somehow that makes all their past problems not matter anymore.Step 6: Final kiss and roll creditsStep 7: Profit

gamedesignkrw:Hmmm... wow...This defiled women and romantic comedies all at once... Of course human nature, mostly for men, is SEX. I am not sure why it is such a sore topic, but it is. I appreciate your bold, yet virgin, approach to the romantic comedies that "sucked." (or in your opinion did not suck enough...) I LOVE romantic comedies and I don't know why. Probably because of their fake approach to romance because it is the closest thing to a video game that I am not interacting with and solving puzzles. My thing is though... I don't like when movies are ruined by sex appeal. Of course there are a lot of jokes to pull out when it comes to sex, so comedy is inevitable. Just I would like to get through an action packed movie like Transformers without the slut shoves her tongue down pretty boys mouth. It adds to the drama everyone seems to crave, but really? Too much sex appeal ruins a movie. I probably think this way because it is usually the women that are thrown around in disgusting ways. I don't know, but I could not believe seeing this review showed off the sex parts making it a good movie... disgusting and definitely not a great first impression on this guys segments...

I can see what you're getting at. For the longest time, I had been frustrated with a women's interest in romantic comedies. Still, I then realized I can't cave in to movies about ninjas fighting each other on top of a volcano with chain-saw nunchaku twice their size (completely made up but you get the idea) and then judge romantic comedies for having an unrealistic portrayal of something. Indeed, for some people who aren't me, gratuitous drama is as exciting as gratuitous action in for me.

Hey Bob, thank you for the review. It convinced me to actually go see this with my wife and, while it wasn't the best film ever, it was certainly (as you say) above the majority of other rom-coms and actually pretty good. A solid choice when going to the movies with a significant other.

And as we all know a happy wife means a happy life!

Final note; my new rule for determining whether to watch a movie in theatres is if Bob likes it and Martin Morrow (of the CBC) hates it, I go. Worked well so far!

I'm happy to hear about a romantic film that doesn't shy away from the fact that all relationships have a starting point that is essentially immediate attraction. And sex is essential to a relationship... I love my girlfriend, been together a long time, but the first time I met her all I could think was "man, I want to fuck her". That's the way of the world, folks, might give this film a shot on DVD

Being savagely beaten due to a prank gone wrong.Yeah, that's how a lot of my relationships started out too. My current girlfriend attacked me after someone brought up this tasteless joke related to Dachshunds, buns, and saurkruat and she attacked me.Why? Because she said she expected a better joke from someone college educated. She assaulted me because i disappointed her.She likes animals and is religiously devoted to her sense of humor. I just had to get into her pants.......Oh right! The movie!I think there was a lot of missed potential, that his movie could have had some serious statements instead of just being a stupid romantic comedy, but as far as stupid romantic comedies go, at least this one had sex and groin trouble. Highly unsophisticated as far as the actual romance goes, but it works because it didn't try too hard.

So I'm late to the party but .. just watched it and thought I'd see what moviebob had to say about it.I didn't even finish watching his review ... I pretty much disliked this movie. I thought the underlying story about parkinson's and having to live with a degenerative disease was fresh and very touching. The gratuitous sex scenes? Unecessary. I don't need to see Hathaway flashing her breasts or Jake totally nude to understand that they're having a physical relationship. It felt like they were trying to add shit to appeal to guys when ultimately what they ARE making is a romcom.For instance the scene where Jamie goes to the party, gets it on with a couple of bicurious women and then gets Viagra side effects? What was that supposed to be? Was he supposed to realise this wasn't the life he wanted anymore? In which case he would've declined the offer of sex and walked away. Was it to show him the dangers of Viagra? Or was it just so his brother could hit him in the crotch for some cheap laughs? Yeah ...I'm a huge Jake G. fan but after seeing this movie I wish I could unsee it. I'm going to have to watch Donnie Darko or Source Code again just to remind myself he makes good movies where he doesn't need to be completely in the buff to get my heart racing.

This post is so long after the review came out that I doubt anyone will read this, but whatever... :P

I think it's kind of funny that out of the 200 comments here, almost no one here actually saw the movie! I just saw it last night, (I wouldn't have if not for MovieBob's recommendation) and overall, I'd say I liked it, not because "it had sex in it and therefore it's good" but because it had very real-feeling characters.

At first, I was kind of irritated by Jake Gyllenhaal's character, lying and cheating to get his way; he's kind of a douchebag... but you learn, through the course of the movie, that there is a reason he behaves that way rooted in his upbringing and his subconscious perception of himself, and the way he overcomes it in the end is kind of inspiring.

And then, there's the "Sword of Damocles" that Bob alluded to that is carefully unmentioned in the trailers, so I guess it would be a spoiler to talk about. I found the whole subject genuinely moving and I thought it was handled quite well, both in terms of Jake Gyllenhaal's and Anne Hathaway's reactions to it, and the effects it has on their relationship.

I'd say Bob overstated the importance of the sex scenes in the movie. They are a thing that happened, and definitely contributed to making the relationship feel "real," but it's not the only thing, or even the most important thing, that made it feel real, and while the movie does play on a lot of RomCom clichés, I didn't feel like they got in the way of making me feel attached to the characters.